ToneDexter 2 is on its way!

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

I can't see why this would be useful. The TD tech isn't useful to a mic so the best thing would be a straight through connection. I'd want to keep the mic clean for processing later so separate output would be required - or just send it straight to PA and don't go near the TD.

Are you sublimating your desire for the StompMix?

Ah Ah I already have a stompmix and multiple IR pedals, blender… I Just wished I could had everything in one… Although I could make such pedal these days. With my new job, I have access to the equipment to do that … but no time anymore to play with it

[tadol]

I haven’t spoken to James about any of this, but I’m pretty sure that any firmware upgrades that can be applied to the processor in TD1 will be offered, but the TD2 has some much more powerful chips in it, and I can only assume that there are going to be upgrades to TD2 in the future that the TD1 won’t be capable of running. There’s nothing wrong with TD1 - but James listens to what people want, and he’s worked with a lot of professional musicians, and he’s taken all that input and feedback and integrated everything he could into TD2. What I’m most happy about is that TD1 hasn’t been available for some time due to the chip availability issues, which has been a real problem - but with TD2 almost ready to ship, that problem will soon be solved, and all this new functionality is added as well!

[Robin, Wales]

I know next to nothing about the Tonedexter, and do not understand a fraction of what has been posted so far....

So I googled "What does a Tonedexter do?"

The answer was:

... transforms the sound of the instrument's piezo pickup into an emulation of the mic.....

So I have to ask....

Why not just use a mic'?

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I know next to nothing about the Tonedexter, and do not understand a fraction of what has been posted so far....

So I googled "What does a Tonedexter do?"

The answer was:

... transforms the sound of the instrument's piezo pickup into an emulation of the mic.....

So I have to ask....

Why not just use a mic'?

Pretty simple answer really: Most musicians don't want to or can't use a mic in the venues they play. The goal is to be able to plug in, move around the stage and play at louder volumes with a pickup that sounds like the guitar. That's what the Tonedexter is trying to do.

[Chriscom]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I know next to nothing about the Tonedexter, and do not understand a fraction of what has been posted so far....

So I googled "What does a Tonedexter do?"

The answer was:

... transforms the sound of the instrument's piezo pickup into an emulation of the mic.....

So I have to ask....

Why not just use a mic'?

Petty has answered this well, but I'll add that maybe a Tonedexter thread isn't the place for that debate. I've learned a few interesting things from your mic advocacy, and expect to continue doing so as it comes up going forward in those threads. Perhaps you can learn a thing or two about Tonedexter and IR, or if the topic doesn't interest you, let those of us for whom it does focus on that.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Chriscom

Petty has answered this well, but I'll add that maybe a Tonedexter thread isn't the place for that debate. I've learned a few interesting things from your mic advocacy, and expect to continue doing so as it comes up going forward in those threads. Perhaps you can learn a thing or two about Tonedexter and IR, or if the topic doesn't interest you, let those of us for whom it does focus on that.

That's a fair point.

It does interest me though. I've just spent the last couple of hours watching reviews of the Tonedexter and other IR systems. I can now see what a fix it is for band situations to improve the signal from a ust going into a desk then out to the p/a.

I'd certainly prefer to go to a gig where someone was shaping the tone than not. And the vast majority of gigs are at pretty high SPL today. I may come from a different perspective but I am absolutely open to learning and thinking about things differently as I go.

I known more about the Tonedexter and Tonedexter II now than I did a few hours ago.

[AeroUSA]

This is exciting and the improvements look great. Like the previous post I also hope to see further firmware updates to the processing. I imagine that there will be…

[Mbroady]

Had the original but preferred a dual source with a mic.
Now having the option to use the dual source with phantom power for a mic could be a game changer

Does it apply an IR to a mic (seems redundant) but IRs for high end mics would be worth checking out.

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

Had the original but preferred a dual source with a mic.
Now having the option to use the dual source with phantom power for a mic could be a game changer

Does it apply an IR to a mic (seems redundant) but IRs for high end mics would be worth checking out.

In my admittedly very limited understanding of most things in this thread, I will say that I'm not sure emulating expensive mics is of any use to the DT 1 or 2. After reading much here and on Audiosprocket's site, it seems that a flat-response reference mic is what works best, and indeed that is the case with my experimenting with the TD1. I bought a PreSonus reference mic for way less than $100, and it works GREAT. Tried other LDC and SDC mics of good repute, and got "ok" results. (I assume your talking about your input mics, for mapping the guitar, right?)

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by dnf777

In my admittedly very limited understanding of most things in this thread, I will say that I'm not sure emulating expensive mics is of any use to the DT 1 or 2. After reading much here and on Audiosprocket's site, it seems that a flat-response reference mic is what works best, and indeed that is the case with my experimenting with the TD1. I bought a PreSonus reference mic for way less than $100, and it works GREAT. Tried other LDC and SDC mics of good repute, and got "ok" results. (I assume your talking about your input mics, for mapping the guitar, right?)

Not sure it’s even possible but I was thinking more along the lines of running any (internal) mic of a dual source system through an IR to give it a high-end-preset mic emulation. There are some software plugins that claim to this but don’t know how accurate or good they sound.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

Not sure it’s even possible but I was thinking more along the lines of running any (internal) mic of a dual source system through an IR to give it a high-end-preset mic emulation. There are some software plugins that claim to this but don’t know how accurate or good they sound.

I have the (cheaper) Steven Slate system in my VST folder for use in Reaper. It works reaonably well at emulating different mic styles but relies on a specific mic for predictable results, chosen for it's *flat frequency and linear transient responses. You can't, however, make a £8k Neumann out of a £150 mass produced element.

*This is much like how James suggests certain mics/pickups for TD training.

[jonfields45]

Before I invested in new microphones, I would take the one I own and listen to recordings of my guitar using that mic. Optimization of placement and getting a result you really like is the key to a better IR. That mic output is the target of the IR calculation process. The bottom line is you love that tone, not that it be some mic manufacturer's claim of flat response which is only an intellectually satisfying goal.

I am also convinced that open position strumming is best for IR calculation.

What we hear when we play includes the reflections from the room and no one is judging they love the sound of their acoustic with their head perched a foot from the front of the guitar near the sound board extension. But that is what you feed into the IR calculation! You need to listen to that and love what you're getting.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

The bottom line is you love that tone, not that it be some mic manufacturer's claim of flat response which is only an intellectually satisfying goal.

100% - manufacturers' claims generally bear little resemblance to user experience anyway, unless they are Neumann or the like and they tend to stick to more number based information because use and environment is such a major factor.

It's also true that I've had IRs and wavemaps that sound great at home and are unusable in a live scenario.

Onward and upward.

[Robin, Wales]

It's also true that I've had IRs and wavemaps that sound great at home and are unusable in a live scenario.

This may sound very simplistic, but I wonder if you could take "home" to "live"?

If you can get a great tone at home running guitar to TD to small acoustic amp. Could you just mic' that into the p/a for gigs (not DI but mic')? When I ran the sound at our local open mic I'd get folks turning up with their small home amps and found that simply mic'ing the amp into the p/a just sort of sounded better out front than taking the direct feed off the amp into the desk. The direct feed was never the same as the sound the musician had spent time working with at home.

Same with plugging directly from guitar (via some sort of tone/d.i. box) to the p/a. It always sounded a bit naff. So I had a small acoustic amp on stage, plugged folks into that, then mic'd the amp into the p/a. It always sounded better than going direct.

So perhaps this would work for IR systems too? Get your guitar/Tonedexter/amp chain perfect at home - and then just mic' that system on stage.

[Petty1818]

I think the Tonedexter is incredible and will probably use it for my mandolin, but I think I will be trying the Voiceprint before upgrading to this new version. The VP doesn't sound as realistic, but the tweakability and options just make it a unit that I can see working better for me.